Jazz critic Leonard Feather (who supposedly helped 'discover' Billie Holiday) once described Betty Carter's vocal tonality as "idiosyncratic." That's what happens when people settle for 'piano-pitch' too long, seems to me; after a while if someone sings the correct pitch, it sounds foreign.

How about Andy Summer's guitar (E, I think) in Da Doo Doo Doo De Da Da Da? Flat as hell.

Maybe not flat as hell so much as flanged and chorused to hell..... I played in a Police cover band for a while and had real difficulty hearing some of the notes, since there was so much swooooooooshing going on...

One thing that I have noticed is that a lot of bands I have heard, for example on alternative stations, seem to have fantastic timing and pitch. But when you see them on late night talk shows playing, some of them sound pretty bad, particularly the vocals. I think perhaps it is wise to remember that at one time everything was done live in the studio. If a lot of modern day music were recorded the same way some of the stuff in the 50s and 60s was recorded, I have to wonder if the bands could cut the mustard.

SKEETER wrote:One thing that I have noticed is that a lot of bands I have heard, for example on alternative stations, seem to have fantastic timing and pitch. But when you see them on late night talk shows playing, some of them sound pretty bad, particularly the vocals. I think perhaps it is wise to remember that at one time everything was done live in the studio. If a lot of modern day music were recorded the same way some of the stuff in the 50s and 60s was recorded, I have to wonder if the bands could cut the mustard.

It's almost a shame you can't force people to record that way, there'd probably be a lot less crappy music.

Rigsby
My point to that was meant to be that, it is easy now to look back and poke at the inadequecies of music from the rock era, but in fact if much of the newer music out there had to be recorded under the same conditions, it wouldn't be any better, and in my estimation wouldn't be as good.
Another thing is, bands like the Beatles because good in part because of doing 25 live takes directly to tape to get a song right, rather than going back and dubbing in a bad guitar lick or a flat "YeahYeah". You cannot do your songs that much in a row and not learn two things, one is the song so you can do it in your sleep, and the other is how to play and sing in key in general. I am betting that recording sessions were the best practice the Beatles ever got.
Modern bands may not have that advantage, technology is not forcing them to become perfectionists about it.
In the past, by the time a band go on stage with their first hit song, they had their material down perfect from having played it over and over and over until they were sick of it.
Older bands even lip synced better. You couldn't really tell if the Stones were playing live on Ed Sullivan or not, or doing a willy vanilly, they did it so well.

SKEETER wrote:Rigsby
My point to that was meant to be that, it is easy now to look back and poke at the inadequecies of music from the rock era, but in fact if much of the newer music out there had to be recorded under the same conditions, it wouldn't be any better, and in my estimation wouldn't be as good.
Another thing is, bands like the Beatles because good in part because of doing 25 live takes directly to tape to get a song right, rather than going back and dubbing in a bad guitar lick or a flat "YeahYeah". You cannot do your songs that much in a row and not learn two things, one is the song so you can do it in your sleep, and the other is how to play and sing in key in general. I am betting that recording sessions were the best practice the Beatles ever got.
Modern bands may not have that advantage, technology is not forcing them to become perfectionists about it.
In the past, by the time a band go on stage with their first hit song, they had their material down perfect from having played it over and over and over until they were sick of it.
Older bands even lip synced better. You couldn't really tell if the Stones were playing live on Ed Sullivan or not, or doing a willy vanilly, they did it so well.

sometimes when something is not perfectly "in tune" it sticks out in a mix. but it can also be considered a "hook", and can be the difference between a memorable performance and a piece of computer perfect commercial garbage.

"Stir it Up" by Bob Marley. one of the bass strings is waaaaaaaaay out. honestly i think too much so.

i never noticed a lot of the ones discussed here (though the kinks have that dirty sound) except "da doo doo doo" by the police. that's one i have trouble forgiving cause i also think it's one of their worst songs. maybe it was done through some chorus effect, since they are far from a one take live in the studio type of a band, but man it sounds sour.

i guess i'm missing the point here cause these are cases where the intonation is hurting the song, as opposed to cases where it doesn't matter.

i'm not really a punk fan, but i'll second the misfits comment -- there is something really cool and weird about their recordings and if the tuning is part of it, then i'm all for it. cheerful pop punk about murder, rape and torture, with elvised-out vocals, and the weird, dry recordings are the icing on the cake.

this isn't a tuning thing persay, but hendrix flubs a note right in the beginning of "stone free". it's really noticable but it hardly messes up the song. definitely one of these things that these days would be punched or redone or whatever.